www.ditl.org

Lets face it-one of the most important things in Trek, the 'No Money Economy' is just plain stupid and unrealistic. Money provides motivation for people to get a job done. One of the main reasons Communism failed was because it provides no motivation-people get the exact same wages no matter what position they are in. Since the Federation is 'Ultra Communism', with no money, thus no motivation, there is no way it should still be able to function.

'Bettering humanity' is a good concept, but completely and utterly unrealistic. Our dependance on money and material things isn't something that we can let go in *200-300 years*. It take millennia to even get that far in our advancement. Anyone agree?

Here's an interesting Wiki article about a documentary. The current economic model is based on the bullshit notion that people should f*ck over other people to get ahead. Is that the motivation you're referring to? John Nash is a f*cking moron.

Why wouldn't people work to better themselves, if their basic needs were taken care of, and they didn't have to worry about whether they'd be able to pay their rent this month?

Tsukiyumi wrote:Why wouldn't people work to better themselves, if their basic needs were taken care of, and they didn't have to worry about whether they'd be able to pay their rent this month?

If you didn't have to work, why would you? Wouldn't you rather spend your time on hobbies than plodding away at some boring office job? Sure there are some jobs that are generally interesting, but even they've got their moments, and there are plenty that are downright sh*t that only get done because they pay the bills. Take away that bill-paying incentive and you have to replace it with something. I believe a Makarov was the incentive of choice back in the USSR.

Captain Seafort wrote:I believe a Makarov was the incentive of choice back in the USSR.

Funny, I was going to say something similar about the incentive to share under the current economic system.

90% of the world's resources in the hands of 10% of the population. Completely reasonable, that.

I like the concept of extras beyond basic needs (which should be universally provided) requiring work. As in, if you want to travel to Italy, you have to accumulate X amount of hours of work. Or, if you want the fancy new game console, you have to accumulate Y amount of hours. Denying people food and shelter because they didn't have the same advantages as others is a form of slavery, and it's bullsh*t.

Tsukiyumi wrote:John Nash is a f*cking moron.

You're wrong. He's an a**hole, true, but a brilliant one. His mathematical genius is without question, but his judgment certainly isn't.

Tsukiyumi wrote:I like the concept of extras beyond basic needs (which should be universally provided) requiring work. As in, if you want to travel to Italy, you have to accumulate X amount of hours of work. Or, if you want the fancy new game console, you have to accumulate Y amount of hours. Denying people food and shelter because they didn't have the same advantages as others is a form of slavery, and it's bullsh*t.

Basically, you ARE talking about the basics of a monetary a/o barter economy, only without the markers. Yes, the basic needs should be provided for in 'Trek since technology provides no reason not to do so; but getting perqs for doing your job is basically getting paid without the tangible check.

Mikey wrote: You're wrong. He's an a**hole, true, but a brilliant one. His mathematical genius is without question, but his judgment certainly isn't.

When he developed the economic model of "F*ck over the other guy" (which is what we adopted), he was highly schizophrenic. I'd say his judgement on the matter should certainly be questioned.

Mikey wrote:Basically, you ARE talking about the basics of a monetary a/o barter economy, only without the markers. Yes, the basic needs should be provided for in 'Trek since technology provides no reason not to do so; but getting perqs for doing your job is basically getting paid without the tangible check.

Basic needs should be provided now, as our possible technology (not implemented because there's no profit in it) provides no reason not to do so. I'm simply arguing against the current economic model, not defending the Federation's "do whatever you want" mentality.

Tsukiyumi wrote:When he developed the economic model of "F*ck over the other guy" (which is what we adopted), he was highly schizophrenic. I'd say his judgement on the matter should certainly be questioned.

"Me want, therefore me take", or some variation therupon has been hardwired into the human psyche for millenia, if not longer. It's hardly a recent concept.

Tsukiyumi, everything you say is correct. However instead of finding a different system, how bout the current one gets regulated (that's the problem in the US)? There's plenty of other "capitalist" economies that work well thanks to being tempered with a little socialism.

Tsukiyumi wrote:I'd say his judgement on the matter should certainly be questioned.

That's what I said. Also to be questioned are his judgment in publically condemning Jews; in soliciting gay sex in public men's rooms; etc.

Tsukiyumi wrote:Basic needs should be provided now, as our possible technology (not implemented because there's no profit in it) provides no reason not to do so. I'm simply arguing against the current economic model, not defending the Federation's "do whatever you want" mentality.

Ideally, I'd agree; but I work damned hard to provide for my family, and it f***ing kills me to see people buying top-of-the-line sh*t in the stores with the guv'mint's money (which means money that I earned but had to give to these freeloaders for no good reason) and I have to scrimp and save in order to do the right thing for my daughter. Nothing is free, whether you use money or not; and the "basic needs" which other people have provided to them come from the sweat of MY brow. If these "basic needs" should be provided magically to everyone, how come I don't get anything? How come I have to work for mine AND for the goldbricks'?

Captain Seafort wrote:

Tsukiyumi wrote:When he developed the economic model of "F*ck over the other guy" (which is what we adopted), he was highly schizophrenic. I'd say his judgement on the matter should certainly be questioned.

"Me want, therefore me take", or some variation therupon has been hardwired into the human psyche for millenia, if not longer. It's hardly a recent concept.

And that's why we should unquestioningly embrace our hardwired instincts? Because... ... ... I got nothing.

I thought the point of being civilized was to overcome our base instincts, not codify them and turn them into economic models. Besides, cooperation proved his model wrong; they simply declared the test subjects "unfit". And, now we all live in a world created using this mathematical garbage. How's the economy over there? It sure isn't kicking ass over here.

Kendall - that's what I want.

Mikey - I'm glad you're in a position to support your family. Things look a bit different when your family is forced to live in a car, a tent, a trailer, and numerous sh*tty apartments because they're injured, or the economy forces them out of their job. Why would you have to support anyone else? The Hiltons and their ilk have more than enough for everyone to share - and they most assuredly did not work hard for what they have.

EDIT: And, I am most assuredly not talking about uninjured dirtbags getting to loaf around and buy top-of-the-line anything.

Tsukiyumi wrote:EDIT: And, I am most assuredly not talking about uninjured dirtbags getting to loaf around and buy top-of-the-line anything.

But that patently IS what goes on.

Tsukiyumi wrote:Mikey - I'm glad you're in a position to support your family. Things look a bit different when your family is forced to live in a car, a tent, a trailer, and numerous sh*tty apartments because they're injured, or the economy forces them out of their job.

I have been forced out of a job, and I was looking at those prospects you mention squarely in the face. Yet, after all that I had paid into the system to help however many people, who was helping me? Nobody. I collected my unemployment - which was paid back at a less-than-100% percentage of what I had paid in - but got nothing from all the programs that I have to pay into now that I have a job.

Tsukiyumi wrote:Why would you have to support anyone else?

I keep asking myself that question, but the guv'mint still keeps taking it out of my paycheck - ALONG with (NOT part of) my income tax.

Yeah, actually trying to get assistance when you need and deserve it is nigh impossible here. Most of what you've said argues against the current system. You aren't wealthy, so you shouldn't have to pay to support lower class folks. Those people sitting on yachts, or alone in their ten-bedroom multi-million dollar mansions should be the sole bearers of that burden.

But, under the current system, those people get tax breaks. While I can barely walk to the bathroom some days, and still have to try to pay my rent and bills on time while being harassed by my landlords, and forced to pay Social Security that I'll never see. To get disability assistance, I'd have to medically prove that I'm disabled; the MRI scan needed would cost me thousands of dollars. So, no help for me. However some scum neighbors of mine get all sorts of free stuff simply for having eight kids.

If everybody gets to have their own replicator, who would NEED money. Would be nice to get something exotic still, but you could just replicate most of whatever you wanted anyway

Mark wrote:If everybody gets to have their own replicator, who would NEED money. Would be nice to get something exotic still, but you could just replicate most of whatever you wanted anyway

To go with the original idea, I'd say taking a trip to Risa, or virtually unlimited potential to design and build things would be incentive enough for a lot of people to choose to work. Education from birth that "this is what people do" would be the key, just as it is now. Except, now it's " You have to screw over little Billy, Jenny, or you'll end up starving on the street".

I agree fully that the no money philosophy as done in Trek is laughable - it would help if they would actually be consistent about it rather than going on about people buying things whenever they forget.

But I do believe that a moneyless society could be created, with the right sort of technology. The Culture described in Iain M. Banks' novels is probably the best stab at it I have ever seen. Basically he posits a society that has energy and material wealth in such abundance that even in a large and imaginative population, everyone can have pretty much anything they want simply by asking for it. He also posits that automation under AI computer control is so widespread and advanced that the society could still function happily if the entire human population chose to spend their whole lives doing nothing at all (which many, though not all, do).

Of course, looked at from a certain point of view the Humans of the Culture are little more than pets of the AI systems.

Given that kind of technology, a moneyless society could indeed function. But vague though the function of the Federation is in Trek, you'd have to strain credulity more than a little to make it look anything like that.